Solución de controversias

El 25 de abril de 2005 el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “República Dominicana - Medidas que afectan a la importación y venta interna de cigarrillos”.

On 24 October 2008 Mexico requested consultations with the United States with respect to the following measures: (i) the United States Code Title 16 Section 1385 (“Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act”) (ii) the Code of Federal Regulations Title 50 Section 216.91 (“Dolphin–safe labeling standards”) and Section 216.92 (“Dolphin–safe requirements for tuna harvested in the ETP [Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean] by large purse seine vessels”) and (iii) the ruling in Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth 494 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2007).

Le 17 juin 2011 l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport dans l’affaire Thaïlande — Mesures douanières et fiscales visant les cigarettes en provenance des Philippines (WT/DS371/AB/R).

On 7 February 2008 the Philippines requested consultations with Thailand concerning a number of Thai fiscal and customs measures affecting cigarettes from the Philippines. Such measures include Thailand's customs valuation practices excise tax health tax TV tax VAT regime retail licensing requirements and import guarantees imposed upon cigarette importers. The Philippines claims that Thailand administers these measures in a partial and unreasonable manner and thereby violates Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.

On 12 August 1997 the EC requested consultations with Korea in respect of a definitive safeguard measure imposed by Korea on imports of certain dairy products. The EC contended that under the provisions of different governmental measures Korea has imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an import quota on imports of certain dairy products. The EC considered that this measure is in violation of Articles 2 4 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguard Measures as well as a violation of Article XIX of GATT 1994.

Le 11 juillet 1996 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Japon - Taxes sur les boissons alcooliques”.

On 11 May 2017 the WTO Appellate Body issued its report in the case “United States - Certain Methodologies and their Application To Anti-Dumping Proceedings Involving China”.

El 15 de julio de 2002 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Artículo 129(c)(1) de la Ley de los Acuerdos de la Ronda Uruguay”.

On 4 March 1999 the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of the US decision effective as of 3 March 1999 to withhold liquidation on imports from the EC of a series of products together valued at over $500 million on an annual basis and to impose a contingent liability for 100% duties on each individual importation of affected products. On 2 March 1999 the arbitrators charged with determining the level of suspension of concessions requested by the United States in response to the failure by the EC to implement the recommendations of the DSB in respect of the EC’s banana regime (WT/DS27) had asked for additional data from the parties and informed the parties that they were unable to issue their report within the 60-day period envisaged by the DSU. The EC contends that the measure made effective by the US as of 3 March 1999 deprives EC imports into the United States of the products in question of the right to a duty not in excess of the rate bound in the US Schedule. The EC further contended that by requiring the deposit of a bond to cover the contingent liability for 100% duties US Customs effectively impose 100% duties on each individual importation. The EC alleged violations of Articles 3 21 22 and 23 of the DSU and Articles I II VIII and XI of GATT 1994. The EC also alleged nullification and impairment of benefits under GATT 1994 as well as the impediment of the objectives of the DSU and GATT 1994. The EC had requested urgent consultations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU.

On 4 March 1999 the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of the US decision effective as of 3 March 1999 to withhold liquidation on imports from the EC of a series of products together valued at over $500 million on an annual basis and to impose a contingent liability for 100% duties on each individual importation of affected products. On 2 March 1999 the arbitrators charged with determining the level of suspension of concessions requested by the United States in response to the failure by the EC to implement the recommendations of the DSB in respect of the EC’s banana regime (WT/DS27) had asked for additional data from the parties and informed the parties that they were unable to issue their report within the 60-day period envisaged by the DSU. The EC contends that the measure made effective by the US as of 3 March 1999 deprives EC imports into the United States of the products in question of the right to a duty not in excess of the rate bound in the US Schedule. The EC further contended that by requiring the deposit of a bond to cover the contingent liability for 100% duties US Customs effectively impose 100% duties on each individual importation. The EC alleged violations of Articles 3 21 22 and 23 of the DSU and Articles I II VIII and XI of GATT 1994. The EC also alleged nullification and impairment of benefits under GATT 1994 as well as the impediment of the objectives of the DSU and GATT 1994. The EC had requested urgent consultations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU.